Gaybutton wrote:If Spacey admits to having done it once, I don't know whether he did it again, perhaps many times. Do you know? If your answer is yes, I'd like you to tell me how you know. If the answer is no, what would it take to convince you that he's "guilty as charged"? If your answer is "I don't know," then it seems you agree with me

My answer is "No, I don't know for sure as I have no specific evidence from my own eyes." On the other hand, how many juries of 12 good men/women and true know for sure that the man they are condemning is guilty or not. In most cases they do not. All they can do is weigh up the evidence as presented to them, exactly as you and I and everyone else has to do re the present spate of allegations. We each come to our own conclusions.

As far as Spacey is concerned, I do not "know" but I am certainly convinced to my own level of proof - not on the basis of one act done when perhaps drunk decades ago. I am convinced because I have old friends of many years standing in the acting/producing profession who had worked with him several times and told me some of what they both "knew" for certain - having seen it in person - and more of what they "suspected". A good friend whom I have known for over 40 years and with whom I have stayed at least a dozen times in Sydney who is also in the production profession has a close friend who worked on the Richard III tour when it moved to Sydney. He told my friend about further indiscretions on that tour. indiscretions that were sexual of nature and directed towards young men.

So on the basis of that "evidence" presented to me by people whom I trust implicitly, I accept that the allegations against Spacey are true.

As for juries, I believe the usual instruction is to vote for conviction only if convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Accusations of sexual misconduct, decades later, with no evidence to back up the accusations, would not be enough to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ok then here is the question.Did you think Clinton was innocent before the bloody dress? Because he was absolutely Guilty whether the dress was found or not.

Sometimes you have to face your own bias and decide on preponderance of evidence even if it is not a smoking gun.

Thus Clinton was guilty as hell including all the other women and Hilary was guilty as hell for protecting him when she would have to be stupid not to know what he was like and I don't think she is stupid.

Trump is as guilty as hell but under your scenario, where is the proof. Something he bragged about on a bus is not proof of action but rather how such a Pig thinks. Thus Trump should be innocent with you and yet you have convicted him. So have I but I have convicted most of the others recently outed whether in a Court or not. At least I am consistent at least this year.

The way the justice system works, you do not need iron-clad proof that a crime has been committed ; you only need 12 jurors to think it has - beyond reasonable doubt - after they have heard all sides of the story.

People are often convicted of murder even though there is no body.

When judges are crucified in the media for supposedly "light" sentences, more often than not those making the criticisms did not attend court every day and so were not privy to the complete evidence.

I agree that in those early days when the women said they were sexually assaulted, it would have been difficult for them to complain, as the perpetrators were in a position of power over them and the girls' careers may have been put in jeopardy had they spoken up.

Also, in those days women just thought, "Oh well, that's just how guys behave" and so put up with it.

If women required the kind of proof you ask for - a witness, for example - before coming forward then no man would ever be found guilty of sexual assault, as he surely wouldn't be stupid enough to do it in front of someone.

All it takes is for one person to speak up. This then gives others the courage to act. They know they are not alone.

And the fact that so many come forward suggests they all can't be lying.

firecat69 wrote:Did you think Clinton was innocent before the bloody dress?

It may seem like I'm being evasive, but the honest answer is I really don't remember just when I came to the conclusion that Clinton was guilty.

a447 wrote:the fact that so many come forward suggests they all can't be lying.

Probably not. But if any are, which ones? Maybe they can't all be telling the truth either. Maybe they're telling the truth the way they remember it, but their memory is flawed. Whose reputations and careers should be destroyed on the basis of these accusations?

People's memories can certainly be faulty, especially after so many years. My own brother and I often reminisce about things we experienced together 30 to 40 years ago, but often enough the way I remember some of it is vastly different from the way he remembers it, yet we both believe we're the one who remembers it correctly - and we're telling the truth as we individually remember it. We were both there - same place at the same time. But one of us has to be wrong. Maybe we both are wrong. But even though our stories might be completely different, if we were both given a polygraph test, we would both easily pass.

While some here seem to be fully prepared to reach their conclusions based solely upon accusations, include me out of that. As I've said, the accusations alone prove nothing and are not enough to convince me.

Again, in my opinion, if you're going to accuse somebody, you should be prepared to back up what you say. If you can't, then don't make the accusation.

A story told by the famous attorney, Clarence Darrow:

"I've always found that most lawyers, including myself, always want to say more than is absolutely necessary. I remember a counsel who was defending a man who was accused of biting another man's ear off in a fight. There was only one witness and during cross examination counsel asked, 'You mean to say you didn't actually see my client bite this other man's ear off?' The witness replied, 'No sir.' And counsel, of course, should have sat down right then, but he was bound and determined he was going to ask one more. 'Well, if you didn't see my client bite the man's ear off, how can you be so all fired sure he did bite the man's ear off?' 'Well sir, I saw him spit it out.'"

Again you fail to address Trump. Is he guilty or not? If you say he is then all your other arguments are ridiculous . If you say he is not you are saying something you don't believe. And don't tell me he said it on tape. He cleaned it up by saying it was Locker Room Talk. Where is your proof that it was not.

firecat69 wrote:Again you fail to address Trump. Is he guilty or not? If you say he is then all your other arguments are ridiculous

Trump is guilty as hell. And all my other arguments make perfect sense. Your attempts to brand my arguments as ridiculous do not make them ridiculous - unless, of course, wanting at least some form of evidence before condemning someone is a ridiculous idea.

Simply accepting allegations as truth is my idea of ridiculous. You might as well also accept the National Enquirer as truth.

I'm not looking for absolute proof, but I am looking for at least some evidence. Evidence that convinces me exists against Trump. Even if it turns out that Trump never actually groped anybody, there is still plenty more that makes him a total asshole - in my opinion.

With other victims of accusations, where there is nothing other than someone making accusations - with no evidence whatsoever. And with no evidence of any kind, I don't accept as fact that the allegations are true and I'm opposed to trashing reputations and destroying careers solely on the basis of an accusation. Isn't that just ridiculous of me . . . ?

Memories can indeed be faulty, especially if the event took place a long time ago.

It's not unusual that you and your brother have different recollections about things that happened all those years ago.

But I'm sure you'd remember if he stuck his hands down your pants and grabbed your cock. There are some things you just don't forget and that surely would be one of them.

I think you're underestimating the effect sexual assault has on its victims. Just look at the boys who were molested by priests all those years ago. Many committed suicide, others are basket cases today. And many have still not come forward.

These young women had to just lay they're and take it, often on a regular basis. They found it vile behaviour but were powerless to do anything.

Some of those who did lost their careers so it's poetic justice that the perpetrators are now losing theirs.

It's true that over the years some women have made false accusations, hoping for a quick payout. But I believe they are in the minority.

The evidence you, and jurors, want is actually there; it's in the girls' common accounts of the modus operandi of these creeps.

a447 wrote:It's true that over the years some women have made false accusations, hoping for a quick payout. But I believe they are in the minority.

Sorry, GB. I can't possibly agree with you on this one.

Not agreeing with me is fine. If everyone agreed with me, there would be no debate - and at least for me, this topic would be no fun.

My argument with you stems from your own words - "they are in the minority." That means at least some of these women are making false accusations. That's the problem. Which ones? Which people accused are the ones who really did something wrong and should have their reputations and careers destroyed as a result?

I don't deny that groping and other incidents occurred. Of course they did. I also do not underestimate how the effect of unwanted sexual attacks can be devastating to the victims. But who are the actual guilty parties? If I'm going to condemn anyone, I at least would like it to be the right person. Without evidence beyond the accusation itself, I don't know who the actual guilty parties are - and neither does anyone else trying to tell me how wrong I am.

You keep ruining your own argument on Trump . You have no proof that he ever groped any of those women who accused him and yet you have convicted him. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

If Trump is guilty and then so are all the others accused by multiple women. By the way who is it you don't think is guilty?